Hi, > I have noticed this too. I dont think pro-labs help much either, it > depends on the lab. Personally I have found a lab near me that works > for me and just stick with them. I get the impression that with the > move to digital, the old optical process is not getting the attention > it deserves. Perhaps it is a skills shortage, or most likely people > cant be bothered to do a good job. My opinions. Feel free to differ at > will.
Do you mean a completely optical/chemcial process, or one that includes a digital step? Many of the Snappy Snaps chain in London produce better C41 minilab prints, at a better price, than the professional labs in London. These prints are made from scans as part of the standard process. Of course, they are not up to the best standards of professional hand-made prints (chemical or digital), but in my opinion and experience the quality of standard prints has improved significantly since the introduction of digital mini-labs. > Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? I quite like Kodak Royal Supra. My local Snappy Snaps prints it on matching Kodak paper and the results are good. The annoying thing about the film is that it's not available in speeds below 200. > Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? I don't think pro / amateur is necessarily a worthwhile distinction. If they are both using minilabs then what matters is how much care they take in the process. You can really only discover this through personal recommendation or trial-and-error. The quality of hand-printing is mostly down to the individual printer, not to the lab. In the UK the best hand-printers seem to work from their own labs to individual commission, rather than for other labs. Unfortunately it can cost about �50/hour to work with them. -- Cheers, Bob
